This is so untrue, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. The overwhelming consensus by scientists at reputable top universities don't allege this at all. But I'm sure you can find it at fringe or less reputable state universities.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#Race-IQ
Much effort has been made to minimize the effect of poverty, stereotyping, and other non-hereditary factors in much of the literature.
Most people downvoting the parent are likely doing so because this research is uncomfortable, not because it is wrong.
Like who? Stephen Jay Gould?
a cursory glance
Maybe you should give it a closer look so you're not resting your worldview on confirmation bias.
Lots of groups develop their own consensus. That still does not mean it's correct.
The main problem is that they want to find an arbitrary metric and then prove that there is a racial variance to it. I would claim that this is a variant of P-mining[0].
They take the concept of "IQ" within the context of the tests to be a scientifically concrete measure like height or weight (which it isn't) than then search for datasets which supports their racial superiority hypothesis.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
Also, Any list that contains the name "Tatu Vanhanen" should be immediately suspect. He's one of the known "racial IQ" crackpots.
This is a false statement: The overwhelming consensus by scientists at reputable top universities don't allege this at all.
As was commonly noted at the time... few who signed it were measurement experts. Note the lack of prestigious programs of the signatories. This is the Wall Street Journal fringe. Certainly not the mainstream of top researchers in the field.
Who are these "non-fringe" you speak of? People who tell you what you want to believe? HuffPo bloggers?
Or are you just blowing hot air, totally ignorant of this field in general, and decided to call some people you've never heard of "fringe"...